Sooooo, are we talking a twinky the size of the Chrysler Building or something the size of a city bus, that weighs 40 tons? I must know! How many Rhode Islands is the twinky in length? I'm betting it would be more effective to measure said twinky in Texases.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact. We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been. Whoopteedee.

aerojockey:Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact. We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been. Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

The bit about getting cellphones to report locations even while powered off was kind of novel. Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption". He's told us a lot of things we didn't know, even if you were already in the "The government is recording all my phone calls!" camp.

Mind you, the conspiracy nuts that were believing these things with no evidence whatsoever are still nuts. They just happened to be, in some cases, correct.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact. We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been. Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.

Really, I'm having trouble mustering any concern over this, given that any fool with a teaspoon of gray matter could have--and did--see this coming three decades ago. Did you think that when cops were tracking murderers and kiddy diddlers by tracing their cellphone pings off of transmission towers that somehow did didn't affect YOU? Because I saw them doing that shiat on CourtTV in the mid-90s. Did you think that when police began locating stupid thieves who posted pics of their hauls on Facebook and YouTube that nobody else was keeping track of it? Corporations have been monitoring social media since at least the late 90's, when Disney used to catch shoplifters by looking for large garage sales selling "Lots of Disney stuff CHEEP!!"

Everyone freaking out about it now--you're twice idiots for first of all not thinking this would happen and second for somehow making a distinction between the data collection done by the NSA and the data collection done by Google and Target. It's all equally bad and equally subject to abuse. And just because the corporations aren't going to arrest you doesn't mean anything--they're also not subject to any laws, even after the fact.

If you're worried about loss of your 4th Amd. rights, you should be; but all this nonsense about "The NSA lied! Obama/Bush/Clinton etc. lied!" is pure whargarble. It is what it is, and the only way to cure it is to get yourself off the radar and minimize your signature. Don't expect the government to stop what they're doing because it inconveniences YOU.

Gaddiel:To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.

Gaddiel:Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.

aerojockey:Gaddiel: To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.

There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

oren0:There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction? Really, especially from my point of view. If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.

rka:Gaddiel: Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.

One of the aforementioned companies allows TLA access to source code for networks sniffing / monitoring products (beyond lawful intercept) after code check-in but before code-signing. It was an open uncomfortable secret. This was going on at least ten years ago when I was working on said product.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact. We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been. Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.

aerojockey:oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction? Really, especially from my point of view. If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.

If things worked as the constitution dictated, the government couldn't get that data from Verizon without convincing a judge they had probable cause. This system naturally provides a check on surveillance and also creates a cost that stops the government from surveilling everyone. Now they can do track you indefinitely because you happened to get within 100 yards of a terrorist or because your NSA significant other wants to see if you're cheating or for any other reason.

Equally troubling, they can data mine locations to figure out who you're associating with and where you've been going. A computer might decide that you're a terrorist or a communist or whatever based on your movements without any prior investigation or evidence. In addition to 4th amendment concerns, this has scary first amendment implications related to freedom of association.